Starbucks has been accused – along with Google and Amazon – of not paying enough in UK taxes. Photograph: Jeff Gilbert/Alamy

Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the public accounts committee

From now on I will be putting away my Kindle and feeding my caffeine addiction somewhere other than Starbucks. We know that Amazon, Google and Starbucks are raking in profits from their economic activity in Britain but using a range of devices to avoid paying their fair share of corporation tax.

It may be legal but it is not right.

Of course it is up to government to act, both in the UK and internationally, to ensure that global companies pay tax according to where they make their profit and don't stash it away in tax havens such as Luxembourg and Bermuda. But consumers can use their power too. By boycotting these companies we not only voice our anger but hit them where it hurts. And any credible government will have to respond to public outrage at unacceptable tax avoidance. So I will be buying my grandchildren's Christmas presents from John Lewis, not Amazon, this year.

Jeff Jarvis, internet analyst and media professor at the City University of New York

A question for you and your committee colleagues: have you, in acts of civic largesse, voluntarily paid more taxes than you were required to by law? That is what you expect Google and other companies to do.

But if these corporations chose to charitably line your coffers they would have to answer to their owners, the shareholders (I am one). They bear a fiduciary responsibility to maximise value, thus maximise profit, which means minimising costs, including reducing taxes. They are not engaging in tax avoidance – a loaded term you use. They are engaging in tax minimisation, which is what we all do when we claim deductions or credits. As you say, it is legal. Your problem, it seems, is not with Google et al but with Bermuda and Ireland, which afford companies attractive tax opportunities, or with France and other countries that are engaging in similar political grandstanding, trying to bully bigger revenue from these successful American enterprises. Or, closer to home, isn't your problem with the tax laws you are responsible for writing?

MH No, we expect them to pay fair tax on the profits they make in the UK, not abuse devices to move those profits out of the country to low tax jurisdictions purely to avoid corporation tax. Of course companies have a duty to their shareholders but they also have a duty to the societies where they make their money.

And since the global economic crisis the public mood and public expectations have changed. People will no longer tolerate companies acting purely in their own interest at the expense of the wider public good. Paying tax is now a central part of how companies are judged. Damage your reputation on tax and you lose business and damage your shareholders' interest.

My problem is with Google et al. They presume that they can enjoy the benefits of the services and infrastructure funded by the British taxpayer but refuse to pay their fair share towards the cost. The idea that these multinational companies with their armies of well-paid lawyers and accountants are being bullied is absurd. It's the small British businesses who find themselves constantly hassled by the tax authorities.

JJ Please show me the rule book – ie the law – that defines "fair". For that matter, since you've suggested these companies are immoral, point me to the Bible verse that enumerates moral taxes. You are making an emotional – that is, political and ultimately cynical – appeal without grounding in the reality of business and law.

If you want these companies to behave differently, make a law. That's your job. But, of course, if you make that law too demanding, you'll have to worry about driving these firms out of the UK, and with them the 8,500 jobs – and VAT and employment taxes – Starbucks generates in a recession, when jobs are desperately needed, and the 2,000 jobs – and entrepreneurial opportunities – Google brings.

Truth is, Google could serve its 90% of the UK search market with nary a presence in the country. Welcome to the networked, global future, in which speech, ideas, collaboration and commerce can no longer be so easily hemmed in by governments. That is what I actually see being played out here. Just as newspapers, including this one, were disrupted by the net, so now are governments.

MH Jeff, how you can describe my position as the cynical one is beyond belief! It was the unconstrained global free market where the pursuit of profit became divorced from any sense of responsibility that landed us in the mess we are in now. Surely the global market of the future will only function well if it is based on clear responsibilities and a commitment to the common good. That's why I believe that tougher laws and tougher policing on tax are needed.

I get really angry when companies justify not paying corporation tax on the grounds that they pay other taxes and create jobs. No other individual, or small business, would get away with that argument.

Call it the British sense of fairness, but I believe most people in the UK will not put up with being ripped off by greedy companies taking out their profits and refusing to put in their proper share of tax. I believe that in the "networked, global future" you refer to, the voice of the citizen and consumer will be proved more powerful than the faceless corporate lobby. At the end of the day, these companies need the UK and European markets. Times and attitudes are changing. You need to change with them.

JJ The power – and responsibility – to do what you want already lies in your hands. I see nothing accomplished by your public browbeating and now boycotting of three large, successful, and American companies – threaded with anger and nonspecific demands to not be "greedy" – except to get attention in media and Twitter. Mission accomplished. So now go write those laws. And go negotiate the treaties that would be necessary to get other governments to stop offering incentives to companies to do business there. Good luck with that.

I do wish you success because I believe the market would be better off with clear rules to work under. I also hope you meet your goals without disadvantaging the UK by making it a hostile environment for investment by both startups and innovative international companies. This is a difficult task you have and it will be best accomplished with careful analysis of the impact of what you do.

This article was amended on 19 November 2012 to reinstate the factthat Jeff Jarvis is a shareholder in one or more of the companiesmentioned.

Sign up for the Guardian Today

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.